On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Reinhard Tartler <siret...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 8:26 PM, Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Reinhard Tartler <siret...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:12 AM, Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Andres Mejia <amejia...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> FYI, I uploaded a new version of XBMC. I'm notifying you all because >>>>> of a major change. This version of XBMC will be built and run using >>>>> XBMC's internal copy of FFMpeg (the 10.2 branch of FFMpeg that is). >>>>> Due to the number of changes done between FFMpeg and Libav >>>>> (particularly with libavfilter), it would have taken an enormous >>>>> amount of work to try and get XBMC building and running using Libav. >>>>> Also, I did forget to note this major change in the changelog, but I >>>>> did add a NEWS entry for this. Sorry about that. >>>>> >>>>> Also as an aside, I think we should discuss how to get ffmpeg back >>>>> into Debian again. As I said some time ago, either Libav, FFMpeg, or >>>>> both have to get their libraries and header paths renamed. >>>> >>>> I also want to note this now, apparently chromium has been using it's >>>> own internal copy of FFMpeg for some time now. Therefore, XBMC is not >>>> the first package where using an internal ffmpeg is being done. >>>> >>> >>> Are you sure that all involved developers, including chromium & xbmc >>> upstream as well as their packagers, would agree on the same FFmpeg >>> snapshot? >> >> I don't believe anyone ever mentioned that these two projects should >> use the same snapshot of ffmpeg. > > Well, it is out of question that having many different versions of a > library such as libavcodec is not acceptable for a stable Debian > release. > > FYI, I've asked on IRC the release team and the security team about > that. The security team referred to the security team, who respond > with: > > 23:47 <gilbert_> siretart: iuculano made the switch to embedded > libav. his plan is to bump chromium to each new > upstream throughout wheezy's support lifetime, and > having the embedded library makes that a lot more > feasible. my opinion is to not release chromium in > stable at all since even that is going to way too > much work, but i've been overrulled. seems people > actually want chromium in stable... > > Chromium is not a good precedent at all. The maintainer has even > joined the security team for having and maintaining it in stable. > Moreover, you have to keep in mind that most security issues and fixes > do come from chromium upstream. Therefore, this is hardly an excuse > for xbmc for handling and outdated, internal copy of FFmpeg in a > distribution package. > >> >>> TBH, I'm very skeptical. And with FFmpeg releasing like crazy after >>> the fork, I don't see the project suitable at all for a distro >>> scenario such as Debian. For instance, you indicate that XBMC uses the >>> 0.10 branch; the latest upstream release, however, is 1.0, the release >>> before is 0.11. Chromium maintains it (defacto) own branch, which >>> admittedly is based on FFmpeg master. Therefore, tracking upstream >>> releases does not seem to accommodate either project. >>> >>> To conclude, I understand that xbmc is causing new challenges here, >>> but TBH, I think the better solution would be to investigate what's >>> missing in libav's libavfilter. For instance, I think you mean the >>> audio filter still, which has landed in libav 9. I imagine that there >>> is still some stuff missing, but if it is useful, I'm sure it can be >>> submitted libav upstream. >>> >>> -- >>> regards, >>> Reinhard >> >> I don't work on the components of xbmc that uses ffmpeg. Elupus is who >> you want to speak to. You can either try the xbmc-dev channels or the >> xbmc forums to reach out to him to see what (if anything) libav could >> do so xbmc could work with libav. > > Sorry, I definitely do not have the resources to engage with xbmc, at > least not at this point, as I am more than busy with preparing stable > libav releases and getting the libav 9 transition going in ubuntu, > here is the current progress: > https://launchpad.net/~motumedia/+archive/libav9-raring/+packages > > Help would be more than welcome. > > To conclude, the fact that the xbmc source package bundles FFmpeg is > an RC bug to me that hinders its acceptance jessie. This means that I > have no problems having such a copy in experimental, or even unstable, > but just not in testing. > > BTW, we have a similar problem with mplayer, were I have the very same > opinion. > > -- > regards, > Reinhard
I think you meant to respond in the mailing lists. Thanks for your input. -- ~ Andres _______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers
